Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices

[Roch]

Have you seen these so called high resolution images of Sheila’s scratch marks, or are you going by what you’ve been told.  Do you still believe your FELLOW police officers have been economical with the truth and what do you mean by this.  I take it you mean Essex Police when you stated this?

How would his position be any different to that of Roy Tyzack's?

As for images etc., you should be grateful instead of blowing a gasket. You were provided with some images on the forum several years ago. But along with the other guilters, you lacked the courage to use your own eyes. Instead, you deferred to contradictory testimony of a pathologist (who incidentally has also contributed to another MOJ). You did this even though you know the Bamber conviction is hugely controversial. You bottled accepting that wounds were depicted - because using your own eyes would have put you in an uncomfortable position re your stance on the case.

[Roch]

A -  The marks are circular and the same size as the barrel.

B -  Its stated in PVs original autopsy notes as such.

C -  Its omitted in PVs later statements when the prosecution believed a silencer was attached on the end of the barrel.

In one sense you have answered my question. In another sense you have not. I hope RJ pays attention to 'C'.

[David1819]

How would his position be any different to that of Roy Tyzack's?

As for images etc., you should be grateful instead of blowing a gasket. You were provided with some images on the forum several years ago. But along with the other guilters, you lacked the courage to use your own eyes. Instead, you deferred to contradictory testimony of a pathologist (who incidentally has also contributed to another MOJ). You did this even though you know the Bamber conviction is hugely controversial. You bottled accepting that wounds were depicted - because using your own eyes would have put you in an uncomfortable position re your stance on the case.

There were no wounds depicted in those images.

The idea is a combination of poor visual acuity, wishful thinking and being a conspiratard.

[Roch]

There were no wounds depicted in those images.

The idea is a combination of poor visual acuity, wishful thinking and being a conspiratard.

QC recently commented on a poorer image of her right hand. Even from that image, he expressed that the marks appeared to be wounds, with the caveat he was a lay person giving an opinion and it needed to be given by an expert. He hasn't even seen a higher def image but could spot the wounds straight away. IIRC, you didn't challenge him, you just left it.    You've also just sign-posted everyone to another aspect of PV's testimony, where he omits information because it doesn't tally with the prosecution's case. 

[guest7363]

How would his position be any different to that of Roy Tyzack's?

As for images etc., you should be grateful instead of blowing a gasket. You were provided with some images on the forum several years ago. But along with the other guilters, you lacked the courage to use your own eyes. Instead, you deferred to contradictory testimony of a pathologist (who incidentally has also contributed to another MOJ). You did this even though you know the Bamber conviction is hugely controversial. You bottled accepting that wounds were depicted - because using your own eyes would have put you in an uncomfortable position re your stance on the case.

If I thought there was wounds I would say so, it makes no difference to me I told you this before.  I bottle nothing, it’s you who is accusing Vanezis of bottling his profession, I will ask you again are you accusing Vanezis of lying in the Bamber case, have you seen these so called high resolution photos?  If your basing the reputation of a professional on the images I’ve seen and everyone else has seen I simply do not agree with you!

[guest7363]

There were no wounds depicted in those images.

The idea is a combination of poor visual acuity, wishful thinking and being a conspiratard.

I agree, very wishful and unsustainable wishful thinking. 

[Roch]

If I thought there was wounds I would say so, it makes no difference to me I told you this before.  I bottle nothing, it’s you who is accusing Vanezis of bottling his profession, I will ask you again are you accusing Vanezis of lying in the Bamber case, have you seen these so called high resolution photos?  If your basing the reputation of a professional on the images I’ve seen and everyone else has seen I simply do not agree with you!

You didn't ask me, you asked Bill. The only person in the innocent camp who sided with guilt supporters such as your self, was David. As far as I'm aware, miraculously, supporters managed to retain the use of their own eyes, while you and your lot bottled it, because it didn't fit with your stance.

[guest7363]

You didn't ask me, you asked Bill. The only person in the innocent camp who sided with guilt supporters such as your self, was David. As far as I'm aware, miraculously, supporters managed to retain the use of their own eyes, while you and your lot bottled it, because it didn't fit with your stance.

Load of rubbish, I will ask you then as well as Bill, do you think Vanezis  lied in his autopsy report or simply blind as a bat?   Did you base this assumption on the photos on here or have you seen these so called high quality negatives that Bill keeps talking about?  You’ve both tried this before and it’s utter rubbish and a non starter.  Bottling it doesn’t come into it when there is nothing to bottle.

[Roch]

Load of rubbish, I will ask you then as well as Bill, do you think Vanezis  lied in his autopsy report or simply blind as a bat?   Did you base this assumption on the photos on here or have you seen these so called high quality negatives that Bill keeps talking about?  You’ve both tried this before and it’s utter rubbish and a non starter.  Bottling it doesn’t come into it when there is nothing to bottle.

It's not just Sheila who has non-disclosed wounds. When PV carried out his post mortem of Sheila and the others, she (Sheila) was supposed to have been the perpetrator for the killings. I have no idea as to whether or not that fact could have coloured his thoroughness, while carrying out his duties. If it didn't and he has recorded the wounds somewhere (now lost or concealed), then obviously his testimony was dishonest. If he lacked thoroughness, then perhaps this lack of thoroughness later assisted EP and the prosecution in their aims. When his testimony helped wrongly convict the other lad, was he being dishonest then? Or was he just arrogant, or incompetent?

I'm going to be straight with you here - you are spouting utter shit regarding 'tried this before' etc. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Nothing has been 'tried'. It's just a simple fact that in order to prosecute Jeremy for the killings, there cannot be any evidence allowed of a fight between the three adult victims. It's very very simple.

[Roch]

I agree, very wishful and unsustainable wishful thinking.

Because you and David both rely heavily upon the evidence used to convict Bamber. In his case, he believes the police are honest but mistaken in their persuit of JB.

[Roch]

And while we're at it RJ. What about Roy Tyzack?

I am a retred Police officer and after leaving the Met Police, I spent 10 years on Essex Police M.I.T. I have always believed that Jeremy is innocent and have had many heated discussions with Essex Police officers who point blank refuse to listen to reason. This is one of the U.K.'s worst cases of injustice and Essex Police should be made to cooperate fully.

[guest7363]

It's not just Sheila who has non-disclosed wounds. When PV carried out his post mortem of Sheila and the others, she (Sheila) was supposed to have been the perpetrator for the killings. I have no idea as to whether or not that fact could have coloured his thoroughness, while carrying out his duties. If it didn't and he has recorded the wounds somewhere (now lost or concealed), then obviously his testimony was dishonest. If he lacked thoroughness, then perhaps this lack of thoroughness later assisted EP and the prosecution in their aims. When his testimony helped wrongly convict the other lad, was he being dishonest then? Or was he just arrogant, or incompetent?

I'm going to be straight with you here - you are spouting utter shit regarding 'tried this before' etc. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Nothing has been 'tried'. It's just a simple fact that in order to prosecute Jeremy for the killings, there cannot be any evidence allowed of a fight between the three adult victims. It's very very simple.

I will be straight with you, your talking utter crap and your trying to mislead posters with your lies based on shit from the CT, have you seen these so called negatives of high resolution that was hidden from Bamber.  I talk and would like to see evidence from you, if your  prepared to spout off and accuse  a profession  (to which you haven’t the slightest knowledge about) of lying to the court and jury,  You and Bill have the nerve to call out a Doctor of medicine, a member of the Royal college of medicine, he holds several deploma’s and was a senior lecturer and consultant at the London Hospital Medical College,  in the name of a cover up based on photos that’s been on this forum and was available to all and sundry. 

[guest7363]

And while we're at it RJ. What about Roy Tyzack?

He isn’t offering any evidence, it’s his belief that’s all, show me evidence.

[Roch]

He isn’t offering any evidence, it’s his belief that’s all, show me evidence.

Ha ha, so a detective within EP's own major incident team, investigating murders and similarly serious crimes, had heated arguments with his colleagues about the Bamber case.. and all he said during the argument was "I believe Jeremy Bamber is innocent".

Grow up RJ.

[Roch]

I will be straight with you, your talking utter crap and your trying to mislead posters with your lies based on shit from the CT, have you seen these so called negatives of high resolution that was hidden from Bamber.  I talk and would like to see evidence from you, if your  prepared to spout off and accuse  a profession  (to which you haven’t the slightest knowledge about) of lying to the court and jury,  You and Bill have the nerve to call out a Doctor of medicine, a member of the Royal college of medicine, he holds several deploma’s and was a senior lecturer and consultant at the London Hospital Medical College,  in the name of a cover up based on photos that’s been on this forum and was available to all and sundry.

So basically, what your post tells me, is that RJ is deferrential to authority. You come across the the kind of person who doths your cap to those higher in authority or with more qualifications than you have.  You believe all such people are beyond reproach and that their honesty and integrity shouldn't be called in to question.  Have you ever wondered whether assisting in the Bamber case was a springboard for him career-wise?